DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                        BCMR Docket No. 2008-081 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

FINAL DECISION 

This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 425 of 
title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the  case on February 29, 2008, upon 
receipt of the applicant’s completed application, and assigned it to staff member J. Andrews to 
prepare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated November 6, 2008, is approved and signed by the three duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

The applicant, who was honorably separated from the Coast Guard on January 11, 1972, 
asked the Board to correct his discharge form, DD 214, by “[a]dd[ing] all awards and medals … 
including  lifesaving  medal,  Sikorsky  wings,  etc./  2  Bronze  stars  on  VSM  [Vietnam  Service 
Medal].”    The  applicant  alleged  that  he  discovered  these  errors  on  January  17,  2008,  and 
provided no explanation of the time lapse of 36 years between his receipt of his DD 214 and the 
alleged date of discovery of the error. 

 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of his DD 214, which shows 
that he is entitled to wear the following: “Combat Action Ribbon; USCG Good Conduct Medal 
for period ending 11 JUN 1971; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal and 
one  bronze  star;  Republic  of Vietnam  Campaign  with  device  (1960  -    ).”    He  did  not  submit 
anything to show that he is entitled to a lifesaving medal, Sikorsky wings, or a second bronze 
star—i.e., a second award of the Vietnam Service Medal. 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
On June 12, 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard.  Upon completing bootcamp, 
he  was  transferred  to  the  CGC WINONA  and  served  on  that  cutter  from  September  6,  1967, 
through December 6, 1968.  During his period aboard the WINONA, the crew performed coastal 
surveillance in Vietnam as part of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force (Task Force 115).  An 
entry in his record shows that on December 6, 1968, he “[p]articipated as a member of the crew 

of USCGC WINONA (WHEC-65) in the night surface action of 1 March 1968, off the BO DE 
river, Republic of South Vietnam in which WINONA engaged and sank enemy trawler #28F.” 

 
Following his service on the WINONA, the applicant attended AD “A” School for six 
months  to  become  an  aviation  machinist’s  mate.    Upon  graduation,  he  was  assigned  to  Air 
Station Annette in Alaska from July 30, 1969, to July 14, 1970.  From August 25, 1970, until his 
release to inactive duty on January 11, 1972, he was assigned to Air Station Los Angeles.   
 
 
Records  titled  “Temporary  Flight  Orders  Record  Sheets”  show  that  the  applicant  was 
issued temporary flight orders several times to serve on flight crews.  Other documents in his 
record contain the following notations regarding his authorization for and receipt of decorations: 
 

•  December 12, 1967: “Fired Navy Course ‘E’ with .45 Cal. Pistol.  Qualified as Marks-

man.” 

 

•  February 15, 1968: “Authorized to wear the Vietnam Service Medal with bronze star.” 
•  August  1,  1968:  “Authorized  to  wear  the  Republic  of  Vietnam  Campaign  Medal  with 

Device.  Acquisition of the RVN Campaign Medal is the responsibility of the individual.” 

•  September 19, 1968: “Issued National Defense Service Medal.” 
•  September 19, 1968: “I hereby acknowledge receipt of National Defense Service Medal.” 
•  December 6, 1968: “Receipt of Vietnam Service Medal is hereby acknowledged.” 
•  April 21, 1968: “While participating in Navy Underway Refresher Training at San Diego, 
California  during  the  period  4  –  24  November  1967,  the WINONA  earned  entitlement  to  the 
Military Readiness Award.” 

•  June 23, 1970: “Combat Action Medal” for sinking of trawler on March 1, 1968. 
•  July 28, 1971: “Awarded U.S. Coast Guard Good Conduct Medal this date for four (4) 

year period of meritorious service from 12 June 1967 to 11 June 1971.” 

•  July 28, 1971: “I hereby acknowledge receipt of the above medal this date.” 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 
On July 15, 2008, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Coast Guard submitted an 
advisory  opinion  in  which  he  recommended  that  the  Board  grant  partial  relief  in  this  case  by 
ordering the Coast Guard to issue the applicant a DD 215 to correct his DD 214 to show that he 
is entitled to wear a Navy Unit Commendation and the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation.  
He  recommended  that  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  lifesaving  medal,  Sikorsky  wings,  and  a 
second bronze star on his Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) be denied.  

 
The JAG stated that the application was untimely and the applicant knew or should have 
known  what  awards  were  noted  on  his  DD  214  when  he  received  it  in  1972.   Therefore,  his 
application should have been filed by January 1975.  In addition, the JAG argued, the applicant’s 
claim for a lifesaving medal and second bronze star should be barred by the doctrine of laches.  
In this regard, the JAG stated that the applicant’s “service record is completely silent regarding 
any incident which would qualify him for the silver lifesaving medal or a second bronze star on 
his VSM.”  Therefore, because of the applicant’s long delay, his own word is the only evidence 
still  available  supporting  his  entitlement  to  these  medals  and  the  Coast  Guard  should  not  be 

required to conduct an investigation when the applicant himself failed to submit any evidence 
that supports his claims to other medals. 

 
The  JAG  stated  that  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual  indicates  that  the  crew  of  the 
WINONA  in  1968  is  entitled  to  wear  a  VSM  with  just  one  bronze  star,  as  shown  on  the 
applicant’s DD 214.  The Sikorsky award, he stated, cannot be included on a DD 214 because it 
“is a private, non-military recognition given by the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation.”  The JAG 
stated that there is no evidence that the applicant ever performed a lifesaving rescue that meets 
the criteria for a medal in the Medals and Awards Manual.  In addition, he stated, members on 
active duty are not normally awarded lifesaving medals, which are usually awarded to civilians 
or members on leave or liberty. 

 
The JAG stated, however, that according to the Medals and Awards Manual, the crew of 
the WINONA earned a Navy Unit Commendation and a Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation 
while performing surveillance in Vietnam from February 15 to March 14, 1968, which are not 
reflected  on  the  applicant’s  DD  214.    Therefore,  he  recommended  that  the  Board  correct  the 
applicant’s DD 214 with a DD 215 showing that he is entitled to these two awards. 

 
In recommending this relief, the JAG relied on COMDTINST M1650.25C, which was 
superseded by a revised version of the Medals and Awards Manual, COMDTINST M1650.25D, 
on May 5, 2008. 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 

 

 

On July 17, 2008, the BCMR sent the applicant a copy of the Coast Guard’s views and 

 
invited him to respond within 30 days.  No response was received. 
 

APPLICABLE LAWS 

 
 
Chapter 1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4D states that when preparing a discharge form, 
DD 214, the administrative officer should “[e]nter all decorations, medals, badges, commenda-
tions, citations, and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized for all periods of service.” 
 

COMDTINST  M1650.25D,  the  Coast  Guard’s  current  Medals  and  Awards  Manual 
(MAM), contains the rules governing the eligibility of Coast Guard members for various awards 
and medals.  Chapter 1.H.4.b. states the following: 

 
Awards from other organizations and agencies. Coast Guard personnel are not authorized to wear 
awards from non-military organizations or government agencies except those specifically allowed 
by this Manual. This restriction includes, but is not limited to: 
 
(1) USCG Auxiliary awards; 
(2) Awards from state and local governments; 
(3) Awards from fraternal organizations (VFW, etc.). 
 
The MAM does not mention any Sikorsky medal or award.  Chapter 4.A. provides the 

following eligibility criteria for a gold or silver lifesaving medal: 

(3)  Military  personnel  serving  on  active  duty  would  normally  not  be 
recommended for Gold and Silver Lifesaving Medals; however, military personnel may 
be recommended for a Lifesaving Medal if the act of heroism was performed while the 
individual was in a leave or liberty status. 
  

Enclosure (16) to the MAM states the following regarding the Vietnam Service Medal 

 
(VSM) and bronze stars: 
 

The Gold and Silver Lifesaving Medals were originally created by Congress in 1874 and are now 
authorized  by  14  USC  500,  dated  August  4,  1949. These  U.S.  decorations  are  not  classified  as 
military decorations but are authorized for wear by Coast Guard personnel. 
 
1. Eligibility. The Commandant awards the Gold and Silver Lifesaving Medals under the general 
criteria listed below: 
 

a.  The  Gold  Lifesaving  Medal  or  the  Silver  Lifesaving  Medal  may  be  awarded  to  any 
person who rescues or endeavors to rescue any other person from drowning, shipwreck, or other 
perils of the water. The rescue or attempted rescue must either take place in waters within the U.S. 
or subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or one or the other of the parties must be a citizen of the U.S. 
or from a vessel or aircraft owned or operated by citizens of the U.S. 
 

(1) The Gold Lifesaving Medal may be awarded to an individual who performed 
a rescue or attempted rescue at the risk of his or her own life, and demonstrates extreme 
and heroic daring. 

(2)  The  Silver  Lifesaving  Medal  may  be  awarded  to  an  individual  who 
performed  a  rescue  or  attempted  rescue  where  the  circumstances  do  not  sufficiently 
distinguish  the  individual  to  deserve  the  medal  of  gold,  but  demonstrate  such 
extraordinary effort as to merit recognition. 

 

 

The  Vietnam  Service  Medal  was  awarded  to  members  of  the  armed  forces,  who  served  in 
Vietnam,  its  contiguous  waters,  or  airspace,  between  15  March  1962  and  28  March  1973. 
Personnel  serving  in  Thailand,  Laos  or  Cambodia,  in  direct  support  of  operations  in  Vietnam, 
during this period, are also eligible for the medal. To qualify for award of the Vietnam Service 
Medal an individual must have met one of the following qualifications: 
 
-  Be  attached  to  or  regularly  serve  for  1  or  more  days  with  an  organization  participating  in  or 
directly supporting or aboard a naval vessel directly supporting military operations. 
- Actually participate as a crewmember in one or more aerial flights into airspace above Vietnam 
and contiguous waters directly supporting military operations. 
- Serve on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days, except that the time 
limit may be waived for personnel participating in actual combat operations. 
 
**NOTE** Medal and 1 bronze star with first award. Additional bronze stars awarded for each 
subsequent period of service. A silver star is used in place of five (5) bronze stars. 
 
Enclosure (16) also includes a list of “Vietnam Service Medal – Eligible Campaigns” and 
a list of “Eligible Units” with the periods for which each unit is entitled to the medal.  The list of 
VSM-eligible campaigns includes the following campaigns for the year 1968: 

 

•  V - 01 June 1967 to 29 January 1968 - Vietnamese Counteroffensive Phase III 
•  VI - 30 January 1968 to 01 April 1968 - TET Counteroffensive 
•  VII - 02 April 1968 to 30 June 1968 - Vietnamese Counteroffensive Phase IV 
•  VIII - 01 July 1968 to 01 November 1968 - Vietnamese Counteroffensive Phase V 

•  IX - 02 Nov 1968 to 22 February 1969 - Vietnamese Counteroffensive Phase VI 

 

In the list of “Eligible Units,” the crew of the CGC BLACKHAW, for example, is shown to be 
eligible for the VSM three times in 1968 (13 Mar 68 - 06 May 68; 24 Jun 68 - 18 Jul 68; 09 Sep 
68 - 11 Oct 68) and ten other times from 1969 through 1971.  The crew of the CGC WINONA is 
shown to be eligible for a VSM only once, for the period “15 Feb 68 - 30 Sep 68.” 
 
Chapter 3.B.4. of the MAM states that the Secretary of the Navy may award the Navy 
 
Unit  Commendation  to  any  Coast  Guard  unit  “that  has  distinguished  itself  by  outstanding 
heroism in action against the enemy, but which is not sufficient to justify the award of the PUC; 
or to any such unit that has distinguished itself by extremely meritorious service not involving 
combat but in support of military operations. Coast Guard personnel are eligible for this award 
only if they were serving with a cited unit and meet the eligibility criteria.”  Enclosure (6) to the 
manual  states  that  the  crew  of  the  CGC  WINONA  earned  a  Navy  Unit  Commendation  for 
participating in “Navy Coastal Surveillance (Task Force 115)” for the period “15 Feb 68 - 14 
Mar 68.” 
 
Chapter 3.B.6. of the MAM states that the Secretary of the Navy may award the Navy 
Meritorious  Unit  Commendation  to  any  Coast  Guard  unit  “that  has  distinguished  itself,  under 
combat  or  non-combat  conditions,  by  either  valorous  or  meritorious  achievement,  but  whose 
achievement is not sufficient to justify the award of the Navy Unit Commendation. Coast Guard 
personnel  are  eligible  for  this  award  only  if  they  were  serving  with  a  cited  unit  and meet  the 
eligibility criteria.”  Enclosure (8) of the current manual does not list CGC WINONA.  However, 
enclosures to earlier editions of the manual indicate that the crew of the CGC WINONA earned a 
Navy  Meritorious  Unit  Commendation  for  exactly  the  same  service—participation  in  “Navy 
Coastal Surveillance (Task Force 115)” for the period “15 Feb 68 - 14 Mar 68”—for which the 
Navy Unit Commendation was awarded. 

 
According  to  paragraph  322.1  of  Chapter  3  of  the  Navy  and  Marine  Corps  Awards 
Manual (SECNAVINST 1650.1H), “No unit, or part thereof, may be awarded more than one unit 
award, regardless of type (including Joint unit awards), for the same act or period of service.” 

 
The  MAM  lists  a  couple  of  readiness  awards  but  none  called  a  “Military  Readiness 
Award,”  which  was  awarded  to  the  WINONA  while  the  applicant  was  aboard.    Nor  is  any 
“Military Readiness Award” cited in Article 9 of the Personnel Manual in effect in 1968 (CG-
207, amend. no. 84), which governed Coast Guard decorations, medals, and awards before the 
MAM was issued separately from the Personnel Manual.  According to Chapter 3.B.8.b. of the 
MAM published in 1995 (COMDTINST M1650.25B), however, the Commandant authorized the 
Coast Guard “E” Ribbon on September 25, 1990,  

 
(1)  …  for  personnel  of  cutters  earning  the  overall  operational  readiness  “E”  award  during 
Refresher Training.  All personnel serving aboard their unit for more than 50 percent of the period 
during which it undergoes Refresher Training are eligible for the “E” Ribbon. … 

(2)  With the exception of the units listed in enclosure (18), no permanent records of Refresher 
Training results exist.  In order to recognize all ships’ crews who have previously met the intent of 
this policy, individuals are encourage to submit documentation to Commandant (G-PMP-4) which 
will facilitate the addition of those units to the list of eligible cutters. 

 

●  ●  ● 

(4)    Requests  by  individuals  who  served  aboard  units  not  listed  in  enclosure  (18)  shall  be 
forwarded to Commandant (G-PMP-4) for eligibility determination.  Approval will be determined 
subject  to  supporting  documentation  accompanying  the  request.    Examples  of  such  supporting 
documentation include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Letters of appreciation; 
Personal award citations; 
Service  record  entries  or  any  other  documentation  available  from  a  member’s 

 
(a) 
(b) 
(c) 
service record; or 
(d) 
Any  other  conclusive  evidence  that  shows  that  a  unit  achieved  an  overall 
operational readiness “E” award during Refresher Training and the requesting individual 
was assigned to that unit during the designated Refresher Training period. 

 

The  current  MAM  (COMDTINST  M1650.25D)  includes  similar  eligibility  requirements  in 
Chapter  3.B.8.,  but  “Refresher  Training”  is  now  called  “Tailored  Annual  Cutter  Training,”  or 
TACT.  Enclosure (10) of the MAM lists the units and periods of Refresher Training for which 
those units are eligible for an “E” Ribbon.  Although the list indicates that the ribbon has been 
retroactively awarded to some crews for Refresher Training in the 1960s and 1970s, the CGC 
WINONA is not on the list. 
 

According  to  paragraph  332.4  of  Chapter  3  of  the  Navy  and  Marine  Corps  Awards 
Manual (SECNAVINST 1650.1H), the Navy issues “E” Ribbons for “permanent duty on ships 
or in squadrons that won Battle Efficiency competitions after 1 July 1974.”  This manual does 
not mention any “Military Readiness Award.”1 
 

Chapter  5.A.26.  of  the  current  MAM  provides  the  following  regarding  medals  for 

marksmanship: 
 

a. Eligibility. Expert medals and marksmanship ribbons will be awarded for achieving specified 
scores over a prescribed course of fire. The Ordnance Manual, COMDTINST M8000.2 (series), 
provides  complete  information  regarding  qualification  requirements  for  these  awards  and  other 
marksmanship  distinctions.  Marksman,  sharpshooter,  or  expert  awards  are  permanent.  An 
individual’s  award  will  be  upgraded  when  a  higher  qualifying  score  is  fired;  however,  awards 
lower than those previously earned will not be awarded or worn. 

(4) Pistol Marksmanship Ribbon. Authorized for each Coast Guard person who qualifies 
as marksman or better with the service pistol of one of the prescribed courses of fire. The ribbon is 
worn without any device for marksman qualification. 
 

(a) A silver “E” will be attached to the ribbon for expert qualification. The silver 
“E” is worn when wearing the ribbon only and will not be attached to the Expert medal’s 
suspension ribbon. 

(b) A silver “S” will be attached to the ribbon for sharpshooter qualification. 

●  ●  ● 

 
Article  9-G-3(b)  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  1967  (CG-207,  amend.  no.  84) 
 
listed  the  following  possible  pistol  marksmanship  awards  in  order  of  precedence:  “…  (3) 
Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge … (5) National Pistol Shot Excellence-in-Competition Badge 
(Silver) … (7) Pistol Shot Excellence-in-Competition Badge (Silver) … (9) National Pistol Shot 

                                                 
1 However, an internet search found a couple of claims of units having won Military Readiness Awards.  The CGC 
BARATARIA apparently won the award in 1965. See . 

Excellence-in-Competition  Badge  (Bronze)  …  (11)  Pistol  Shot  Excellence-in-Competition 
Badge (Bronze) … (13) Expert Pistol Shot Medal … .” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552. 

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) and 33 C.F.R. § 52.22, an application to the Board 
must  be  filed  within  three  years  after  the  applicant  discovers,  or  reasonably  should  have  dis-
covered, the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant alleged that he discovered the errors on his 
DD 214 on January 17, 2008.  However, the applicant received his DD 214 in 1972, and he has 
not shown that anything prevented him from discovering the alleged errors on his DD 214 in the 
more  than  30-year-long  interim.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  should  have 
known of the alleged errors on his DD 214 many years ago, and so his application is untimely. 

The applicant asked that his DD 214 be corrected to show that he is entitled to a 
lifesaving medal.  Nothing in the record, however, supports his contention that he is entitled to 
either  a  gold  or  silver  lifesaving  medal.    In  this  regard,  the  Board  notes  that  under  Chapter 
4.A.1.a.(1) of the MAM, a member on active duty may only be awarded a lifesaving medal for 
“extreme  and  heroic  daring”  in  the  course  of  saving  or  attempting  to  save  someone  from 
drowning or shipwreck while the member is on leave or liberty.  Under the Board’s rules at 33 
C.F.R.  §  52.24(b),  the  applicant’s  military  record  is  presumptively  correct  as  it  is,  and  the 

1. 
 
2. 

 
3. 

 
4. 

 
5. 

 
6. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b), the  Board may  excuse the untimeliness of an 
application if it is in the interest of justice to do so.  In Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 164 
(D.D.C. 1992), the court stated that to determine whether the interest of justice supports a waiver 
of the statute of limitations, the Board “should analyze both the reasons for the delay and the 
potential merits of the claim based on a cursory review.”  The court further instructed that “the 
longer the delay has been and the weaker the reasons are for the delay, the more compelling the 
merits  would  need  to  be  to  justify  a  full  review.”    Id.  at  164-65;  see  Dickson  v.  Secretary  of 
Defense, 68 F.3d 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1995).   

The applicant did not justify his long delay in inquiring into the completeness of 
the list of medals and awards on his DD 214 and in seeking correction of it.  However, in the 
advisory opinion, the Coast Guard admitted that the applicant’s DD 214 fails to show an award 
to which the applicant is entitled.  In light of the clear error on his DD 214, as discussed below, 
the Board will waive the statute of limitations for this case in the interest of justice. 

The applicant asked that his DD 214 be corrected to show that he is entitled to 
“Sikorsky wings.”  There is no such medal or award listed in the Medals and Awards Manual 
(MAM),  COMDTINST  M1650.25D,  and  the  Coast  Guard  states  that  it  is  not  an  authorized 
military award but an award issued by a private corporation.  Therefore, the Board agrees with 
the JAG that, under Chapter 1.E. of COMDTINST M1900.4D and Chapter 1.H.4.b of the MAM, 
the lack of a notation of “Sikorsky wings” on the applicant’s DD 214 is not an error or injustice 
since only authorized military medals and awards may be reported on a DD 214. 

applicant bears the burden of proving any alleged error or injustice by a preponderance of the 
evidence.  The applicant has submitted nothing to overcome the presumption that his military 
record is correct in showing that he is not entitled to a lifesaving medal. 

The applicant asked that his DD 214 be corrected to show that he is entitled to a 
second bronze star on his Vietnam Service Medal (VSM).  Enclosure (16) to the MAM indicates 
that  a  medal  with  one  bronze  star  is  received  for  the  first  award  of  the  VSM  and  that  an 
additional bronze star is attached to the medal for each additional authorized award of the VSM.  
The applicant’s record shows that he was authorized the VSM once, on February 15, 1968, and 
that he received the medal on December 6, 1968.  Enclosure (16) supports these records in that it 
shows that the crew of the CGC WINONA was authorized the VSM just once, for the period  
February  15  to  September  30,  1968.    Therefore,  the  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  not 
overcome  the  presumption  of  regularity  under  33  C.F.R.  §  52.24(b)  and  has  not  proved  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to a second bronze star on his VSM. 

 
7. 

 
8. 

 
9. 

The Coast Guard reviewed the applicant’s record and a prior edition of the MAM 
and  alleged  that  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  both  a  Navy  Unit  Commendation  and  a  Navy 
Meritorious Unit Commendation because, in prior editions of the MAM, the CGC WINONA is 
listed as a recipient of both commendations for the same operation, “Navy Coastal Surveillance 
(Task Force 115),” and the same period, February 15 to March 14, 1968.  The current edition of 
the MAM (COMDTINST M1650.25D) omits the WINONA from the list of units entitled to a 
Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation.  Therefore, the Board must determine whether the crew 
of the WINONA was, as the JAG stated, eligible for both of these awards for the same operation 
and  period  of  service.    Both  awards  are  authorized  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy.    Paragraph 
322.1 of Chapter 3 of the Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual (SECNAVINST 1650.1H) 
states that “[n]o unit, or part thereof, may be awarded more than one unit award, regardless of 
type  (including  Joint  unit  awards),  for  the  same  act  or  period  of  service.”    In  addition,  the 
explanation  of  the  Navy  Meritorious  Unit  Commendation  in  Chapter  3.B.6.  of  the  MAM 
implicitly prohibits the receipt of both awards for the same service because it says that the Navy 
Meritorious Unit Commendation, which is the lesser of the two, is awarded to a unit “that has 
distinguished itself, … by either valorous or meritorious achievement, but whose achievement is 
not sufficient to justify the award of the Navy Unit Commendation.”  Therefore, the Board finds 
that as a crewmember of the CGC WINONA during the period February 15 to March 14, 1968, 
the applicant is entitled to the Navy Unit Commendation but not to the Navy Unit Meritorious 
Commendation, as shown in the current edition of the MAM. 

Aside from requesting correction of his DD 214 to reflect receipt of a lifesaving 
medal, Sikorsky wings, and second bronze star on his VSM, the applicant also asked the Board 
to “[a]dd all awards and medals to DD 214.”  The JAG argued that the Coast Guard should not 
be required to investigate such matters when the applicant himself has submitted no supporting 
evidence and that his claims should be barred by the doctrine of laches.  However, just as the 
Coast Guard’s review of the record identified his entitlement to the Navy Unit Commendation, 
the  Board’s  review  of  the  record  has  identified  a  possible  military  award  documented  in  the 
applicant’s military record but omitted from his DD 214:   An “Administrative Remarks” entry 
dated April 21, 1968, states that “[w]hile participating in Navy Underway Refresher Training at 
San  Diego,  California  during  the  period  4  –  24  November  1967,  the  WINONA  earned 
entitlement  to  the  Military  Readiness  Award.”    Although  no  Coast  Guard  or  Navy  manual 
reviewed by the Board mentions a “Military Readiness Award,” this may be because the award is 

an  old  one  and  was  given  to  units,  not  to  personnel.    Because  the  CGC  WINONA  earned  a 
“Military  Readiness  Award”  for  its  performance  during  Refresher  Training,  it  appears  to  the 
Board  that  the  crew  of  the  WINONA  may  be  eligible  for  a  Coast  Guard  “E”  Ribbon  under 
Chapter 3.B.8. of the MAM.   In the 1995 MAM (COMDTINST M1650.25B), Chapter 3.B.8. 
indicates  that  the  “E”  Ribbon  was  authorized  in  1990  “for  personnel  of  cutters  earning  the 
overall operational readiness ‘E’ award during Refresher Training.”  The current MAM refers to 
TACT, instead of Refresher Training, in Chapter 3.B.8., but still refers to Refresher Training in 
the enclosure listing units eligible for the ribbon, and both old and current editions of the MAM 
expressly authorize retroactive awards of the ribbon.  Subparagraphs b(2) and b(4) of Chapter 
3.B.8.  state  that  records  of  the  results  of  Refresher  Training  were  not  retained  and  invite 
individuals to submit requests for the award to the Commandant with evidence of the receipt of 
the award, such as “service record entries.”  The “Administrative Remarks” entry dated April 21, 
1968, in the applicant’s record, denoting the WINONA’s receipt of a “Military Readiness Award” 
for the crew’s performance during Refresher Training in November 1967 constitutes just such a 
service record entry. 

Although the JAG argued that the doctrine of laches should bar claims for other 
medals and awards, the Board finds that the doctrine of laches should not apply with respect to 
the  “E”  Ribbon  because  in  Chapter  3.B.8.  of  the  MAM,  the  Commandant  continues  to  invite 
individuals to submit evidence of past awards for readiness during Refresher Training so that the 
“E” Ribbon may be awarded to crewmembers retroactively.  In this regard, the Board notes that 
the MAM enclosure listing known units whose personnel are entitled to the “E” Ribbon shows 
that the ribbon has been retroactively awarded to cutter personnel for periods in the 1960s and 
1970s  even  though  the  “E”  Ribbon  was  not  authorized  until  1990.    In  Chapter  3.B.8.  of  the 
MAM,  the  Coast  Guard  has  accepted  the  duty  of  examining  evidence  of  Refresher  Training 
awards and determining whether the “E” Ribbon should be awarded to the crewmembers retro-
actively.  The notation in the applicant’s “Administrative Remarks” entry dated April 21, 1968, 
strongly suggests that the crew of the WINONA may be entitled to a Coast Guard “E” Ribbon 
for  their  performance  during  Refresher  Training  in  November  1967.    Therefore,  because  the 
WINONA received a “Military Readiness Award” during Refresher Training in November 1967, 
while the applicant was a member of the crew, the Board finds that the Coast Guard should be 
required  to  complete  the  review  required  under  Chapter  3.B.8.  of  the  MAM  and  determine 
whether the applicant is entitled to the “E” Ribbon.  The Board understands that the passage of 
time  between  the  WINONA’s  receipt  of  the  Military  Readiness  Award  and  the  date  of  this 
decision may make this review difficult, but even if the applicant had submitted his application 
on  September  25,  1990  (the  day  the  Commandant  authorized  the  “E”  Ribbon  and  invited 
requests for retroactive application of the award), the review would have been difficult given the 
then 23 intervening years since the WINONA earned the award. 

 
10. 

 
11. 

The  Board  notes  that  an  “Administrative  Remarks”  entry  dated  December  12, 
1967,  in  the  applicant’s  record  shows  that  he  “[f]ired  Navy  Course  ‘E’  with  .45  Cal.  Pistol.  
Qualified as Marksman.”  Had he accomplished this feat today, the applicant would likely have 
been entitled to a Pistol Marksmanship Ribbon without any device under Chapter 5.A.26. of the 
MAM.    However,  according  to  Article  9-G-3  of  the  Personnel  Manual  in  effect  in  1967,  the 
lowest award  for pistol marksmanship then authorized was the Expert Pistol Shot Medal.  As 
indicated in Chapter 5.A.26., the “expert” level is higher than the “marksman” level.  Therefore, 
the Board finds insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant’s performance on the firing 
range on December 12, 1967, entitled him to a marksmanship award. 

12. 

 
 
Accordingly, the applicant’s requests for a lifesaving medal, Sikorsky wings, and 
a second bronze star on his Vietnam Service Medal should be denied, but the Coast Guard should 
issue the applicant a DD 215 to correct his DD 214 to show that he is entitled to a Navy Unit 
Commendation.  In addition, if the Coast Guard’s examination under Chapter 3.B.8. of the MAM 
shows that the crew of the WINONA is eligible for the Coast Guard “E” Ribbon because the 
WINONA was awarded a Military Readiness Award for its performance during Navy Underway 
Refresher Training in San Diego in November 1967, the applicant’s receipt of the Coast Guard 
“E” Ribbon should also be noted on the DD 215. 

 

 
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

 

The  application  of  former  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG,  for  correction  of  his 

Coast Guard military record is granted in part as follows: 

 
(a)  The Coast Guard shall correct his record to show that he is entitled to a Navy Unit 
Commendation for his service aboard the CGC WINONA from February 15 to March 14, 1968. 

 
(b)    The  Coast  Guard  shall  review  his  service  record,  including  the  “Administrative 
Remarks”  entry  dated  April  21,  1968,  stating  that  “[w]hile  participating  in  Navy  Underway 
Refresher  Training  at  San  Diego,  California  during  the  period  4  –  24  November  1967,  the 
WINONA earned entitlement to the Military Readiness Award,” and perform the review required 
of  the  Coast  Guard  by  Chapter  3.B.8.b.(4)  of  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual  to  determine 
whether he, as a crewmember of the WINONA in November 1967, is eligible for a Coast Guard 
“E” Ribbon. 

 
(c)  The Coast Guard shall issue him a DD 215 showing his entitlement to a Navy Unit 
Commendation and also to a Coast Guard “E” Ribbon if the review performed under paragraph 
(b) above reveals that he is entitled to it.   
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Evan R. Franke 

 

 
 
 Jordan S. Fried 

 

 

 

 
 
 Robert S. Johnson, Jr.